Countries that believe their culture is superior to others

[Jovialis]

@Alichu, have you noticed that academics also tie genetics to ethnicity?

examples:

Simmer down, because you sound foolish.

 

[Jovialis]

@Alichu, have you noticed that academics also tie genetics to ethnicity?

examples:

Simmer down, because you sound foolish.

Far-left wingers like Alichu are facilitating a war on science, in the same way some right wingers deny evolution or climate change. Fact are facts, regardless of political motives or moral invective.

 

[Jovialis]

If you want to argue for the free movement of people is one thing, but foreigners will never magically become ethnically Greek or any other ethnicity. They will always be their own ethnicity, in a different geographical location.

 

[Archetype0ne]

If you want to argue for the free movement of people is one thing, but foreigners will never magically become ethnically Greek or any other ethnicity. They will always be their own ethnicity, in a different geographical location.

I mean... just a counterexample to your last claim. Today a large portion of Arvanites consider themselves Greek, just like a large number of Irish immigrants consider themselves "American".

I still find it funny, that this thread about Culture deralied into a thread about ethnicity and genes. On one hand, both ethnicity and culture are social constructs, genes on the other hand are hard, cold scientific fact.

I will give another counterexample to what I percieve to be the real issue here. If I understand the claims from various posters in this thread, culture/(to a lesser extend ethnicity) is based on genes(not my claim/ I disagree with this). I beg to differ. Check out North Korea / South Korea. Diametrically different culture, on the way to becoming separate ethnicities if this keeps up a few more generations, yet genetically ? Are they not indistinguishable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count...mple hence is a,full hypothesis of a theorem.

 

[G2ian]

This is such a woeful topic. The question itself has negative undertone, it's simplistic and dismissive. "Our culture is not perfect but it is superior to others" First of all If I was Greek I'd definitely answer Yes. Why should one evaluate their country only in it's current state while dismissing millennia of history? Secondly people associate superiority with prosperity, which is also bullshit. A lot of modern prosperity comes from Genocide, Slavery, Imperialism, arms trade, Geopolitical luck, etc... nothing to be proud of.

Also what part of culture are we talking about ? Military power? in that case Mongols achieved the feats that will probably never be matched by anyone.

Technology? well that comes through prosperity which often comes from crime as pointed out earlier.

Free thinking ? That is more of an evolution to which many cultures have contributed across history. For example, Renaissance, the catalyst of modern progress was the result of Byzantine influence on crusaders and Europeans after the migrations to the west, so one more point to Greeks there.

Way of life ? What makes us think that modern way of life is good or right ? Working your ass off til you're 60 for a company that might or might not be part of the reason for climate change and host of other problems in the world, barely having time to spend with family or friends and then reaping the fruits of your labor after you're old and frail? Not to mention living off of near slave labor. What makes that better than living in a village taking care of your vineyard surrounded by your family and tribe of well wishers ?

Why are cultural melting pots better than appreciating each others culture without being forced to constantly change and adopt to foreign ideals or accept masses of migrants which will inevitably change your nation for the worse ? (with the exception of obvious human rights issues being non negotiable )

We have a long goddamn way to go til we reach any form of "higher civilization". these kind of surveys are just embarrassing and ironically there to hint at superiority of certain cultures over others due to their beliefs..

 

[Ailchu]

@Alichu, have you noticed that academics also tie genetics to ethnicity?

examples:

Simmer down, because you sound foolish.

sure there is a genetic component to ethnicity. i never denied this. but you are connecting this component with the cultural component without even knowing the real interactions. which differences in cultures are because of genetical difference and which differences are not? you have no idea.

or else what are you going to tell a nordicist who wants to deport everyone from the south? what are you going to tell the lega when they want to seperate north from south italy?

and especially when looking at ethnocentrism, how are you going to tell people to not discriminate people of different ancestry, even when fully integrated, who entered their country probably without their personal consent, when you actually agree with genetic ethnocentrism yourself?
are you just going to tell them, "please be nice" or something without actually attacking their ethnocentrism?

 

[Archetype0ne]

This is such a woeful topic. The question itself has negative undertone, it's simplistic and dismissive. "Our culture is not perfect but it is superior to others" First of all If I was Greek I'd definitely answer Yes. Why should one evaluate their country only in it's current state while dismissing millennia of history? Secondly people associate superiority with prosperity, which is also bullshit. A lot of modern prosperity comes from Genocide, Slavery, Imperialism, arms trade, Geopolitical luck, etc... nothing to be proud of.

Also what part of culture are we talking about ? Military power? in that case Mongols achieved the feats that will probably never be matched by anyone.

Technology? well that comes through prosperity which often comes from crime as pointed out earlier.

Free thinking ? That is more of an evolution to which many cultures have contributed across history. For example, Renaissance, the catalyst of modern progress was the result of Byzantine influence on crusaders and Europeans after the migrations to the west, so one more point to Greeks there.

Way of life ? What makes us think that modern way of life is good or right ? Working your ass off til you're 60 for a company that might or might not be part of the reason for climate change and host of other problems in the world, barely having time to spend with family or friends and then reaping the fruits of your labor after you're old and frail? Not to mention living off of near slave labor. What makes that better than living in a village taking care of your vineyard surrounded by your family and tribe of well wishers ?

Why are cultural melting pots better than appreciating each others culture without being forced to constantly change and adopt to foreign ideals or accept masses of migrants which will inevitably change your nation for the worse ? (with the exception of obvious human rights issues being non negotiable )

We have a long goddamn way to go til we reach any form of "higher civilization". these kind of surveys are just embarrassing and ironically there to hint at superiority of certain cultures over others due to their beliefs..

I agree with most of your observations mate.

Just found the highlighted part controversial and somewhat funny.

Again I think immigration is not in the scope of this thread. But do people really think there would be this many immigrants had so many wars for oil and imperial spheres of influence not happend in the Middle East for at least the last 20 years?

Or would there be so much immigration from Africa across the mediterenean had Colonialism not shifted the scales of prosperity to such disbalance?

Also the Mongols got nothing on the British.

 

[Jovialis]

I mean... just a counterexample to your last claim. Today a large portion of Arvanites consider themselves Greek, just like a large number of Irish immigrants consider themselves "American".

I still find it funny, that this thread about Culture deralied into a thread about ethnicity and genes. On one hand, both ethnicity and culture are social constructs, genes on the other hand are hard, cold scientific fact.

I will give another counterexample to what I percieve to be the real issue here. If I understand the claims from various posters in this thread, culture/(to a lesser extend ethnicity) is based on genes(not my claim/ I disagree with this). I beg to differ. Check out North Korea / South Korea. Diametrically different culture, on the way to becoming separate ethnicities if this keeps up a few more generations, yet genetically ? Are they not indistinguishable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count...mple hence is a,full hypothesis of a theorem.

"American" is their nationality, their ethnicity is Irish. The only people that consider themselves ethnically "American" are some old-stock Americans (British Isle origin) around the Appalachian region:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]

[/FONT]

 

[Archetype0ne]

"American" is their nationality, their ethnicity is Irish. The only people that consider themselves ethnically "American" are some old-stock Americans (British Isle origin) around the Appalachian region:

Okay. Good point.

So if I was born in the US (US nationality), to 4th generation Irish-Italian grandparents on my mothers side, and Native American - Mexican grandparents on my fathers side, what would my "ethnicity" be?

Also, you do realize most of the places with Hispanic / Latino majority in the US used to be part of Old Mexico? Do you find it acceptable that this people that lived there before the push to colonize the West from British imigrants, are now considered 2nd class citizens with remarks like "Go back to your country", "Speak English"....

Finally, most Greek nationalists I know say Arvanites are Greek, whether they mean nationality or ethnicity, God knows. But they swear Arvanites are Greek and not Albanian. And sadly, for me as an Albanian, quite a big portion of Arvanites consider themselves Greek ethnically today, and go out of their way not to know a single word of the language their grandparents spoke (Arvanitka)... So is it because of their genes that they consider themselves Greek?
I don't know man, if in 3 generations these people solely based on religion and geographic location, assimilated completely into the Greek ethnos, culturally and linguistically, to me it shows how it all is a big social construct, of nationalistic/ethnic whatever you want to call it, myth.

PS: If you were indeed right. Which I have no issue with. Then how did your forefathers become "Italians" to begin with? Surely there is genetic discrepancy, linguistic discrepancy, cultural discrepancy, in the various regions of Italy? No?
If genes were so important to determine nationality and culture, most ethnicities and cultures would have been gate-kept by such a constraint before they even formalized.

Anyways...

I am not saying I am right. Just my 2 cents.

 

[G2ian]

sure there is a genetic component to ethnicity. i never denied this. but you are connecting this component with the cultural component without even knowing the real interactions. which differences in cultures are because of genetical difference and which differences are not? you have no idea and it is you who is unscientific.

or else what are you going to tell a nordicist who wants to deport everyone from the south? what are you going to tell the lega when they want to seperate north from south italy?

and especially when looking at ethnocentrism, how are you going to tell people to not discriminate people of different ancestry, even when fully integrated, when you actually agree with genetic ethnocentrism yourself?
are you just going to tell them, "please be nice" or something without actually attacking their ethnocentrism?

Discriminating on genetic basis is straight up idiocy. But what goes for "ethnocentrism" today is imo laughable. I think the whole point of a country is for your group of people to have a home in their corner of the world where they can pursue their way of life in peace. Small scale migrations are fine, even positive imo. But when it comes to countries being forced to change and conform to different cultural norms because of massive political shifts in the region, that is unfair and even dangerous imo. It sows the seeds of hate and extremism that might sprout decades from now. I'm a big fan of Classic EU approach where countries are working together for the good of everyone involved but without being forced to mutate into one big overarching culture, why can't we just stay the way we are, but still work together without war and conflict?

Ironically I've lived outside my country for half of my life, but I've never gone anywhere and pointed finger at locals or told them to change their ways because I thought they were wrong. That's just insane in my book. I also have never felt unwelcome because: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"

 

[G2ian]

I agree with most of your observations mate.

Just found the highlighted part controversial and somewhat funny.

Again I think immigration is not in the scope of this thread. But do people really think there would be this many immigrants had so many wars for oil and imperial spheres of influence not happend in the Middle East for at least the last 20 years?

Or would there be so much immigration from Africa across the mediterenean had Colonialism not shifted the scales of prosperity to such disbalance?

Also the Mongols got nothing on the British.

Mongols did it on horses. Gunpowder and shipbuilding just changed the scale of the game really. But balance of power was far more even for the mongols who had to face dozens of nations with similar resources and ability to produce tools of war. Brits went around with guns and viruses fighting civilizations far less developed than they were. Native Americans, Africans, Islanders, The French etc..

 

[Ailchu]

Discriminating on genetic basis is straight up idiocy. But what goes for "ethnocentrism" today is imo laughable.

when i use it and hear others use it i apply the meaning of the definitions that i posted. and as i already said, if ethnocentrism is seperated from genetics it does not have to be bad. otherwise it is extremely dangerous.

people really didn't seem to like this statement.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Mongols did it on horses. Gunpowder and shipbuilding just changed the scale of the game really. But balance of power was far more even for the mongols who had to face dozens of nations with similar resources and ability to produce tools of war. Brits went around with guns and viruses fighting civilizations far less developed than they were. Native Americans, Africans, Islanders, The French etc..

Also what part of culture are we talking about ? Military power? in that case Mongols achieved the feats that will probably never be matched by anyone.

I was just quoting you on Military Power. Military Power is a zero sum game calculus. Doesn't matter how as long as you got a real advantage you got power.
I am not disagreeing with you and your observation. However keep in mind the Black Death and the huge technological advantage the Mongols had, from composite bows, to horse riding swarms of archers, to even gunpowder. That is even without mentioning their superior supply lines, army organisation, counter intelligence, psychological warfare etc, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization#Gunpowder

The whole Wikipedia entry on Mongol military is worth a read IMO.

Another similarity between the Mongols and the British was the control of the trade from East to West (https://medium.com/@rsdancey/genghis-khan-and-the-making-of-the-modern-world-285475b9f15d) that made them immensely rich and able to draft an international multi ethnic army, which was by no means inferior to any army they faced.

[h=3]Inclusion[edit][/h]As they were conquering new people, the Mongols integrated into their armies the conquered people's men if they had surrendered - willingly or otherwise. Therefore, as they expanded into other areas and conquered other people, their troop numbers increased. Exemplifying this is the Battle of Baghdad, during which many diverse people fought under Mongol lordship. Despite this integration, the Mongols were never able to gain long-term loyalty from the settled peoples that they conquered.^[50]


I highly recommend these two books:

https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Jared-Diamond-ebook/dp/B000VDUWMC

https://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civilizations-Remaking-World-ebook/dp/B000R1BAH4

 

[Jovialis]

sure there is a genetic component to ethnicity. i never denied this. but you are connecting this component with the cultural component without even knowing the real interactions. which differences in cultures are because of genetical difference and which differences are not? you have no idea.

or else what are you going to tell a nordicist who wants to deport everyone from the south? what are you going to tell the lega when they want to seperate north from south italy?

and especially when looking at ethnocentrism, how are you going to tell people to not discriminate people of different ancestry, even when fully integrated, who entered their country probably without their personal consent, when you actually agree with genetic ethnocentrism yourself?
are you just going to tell them, "please be nice" or something without actually attacking their ethnocentrism?

You think Italians all have one universal monolithic culture? It is not just Northern Italy and Southern Italy; cuisine, dialects, music, and even genetics are different, even from a sub-regional level. There are Albanians, and Greeks that have been living in Italy for centuries, that exist with their own unique traditions and language. This dynamic exists in others countries as well. Like I said before, if you want to argue for the free movement of people, that is one thing. Genetics is connected to ethnicity, this we agree on. Culture, is often connected to ethnicity. People have the right to think what they want, and some, regardless if you like it or not, have a preference for their own, or familiar cultures. I am starting to wonder if you posses the mental gymnastics to grasp this.

 

[Ailchu]

Genetics is connected ethnicity, this we agree on. Culture, is often connected to ethnicity. People have the right to think what they want, and some, regardless if you like it or not, have a preference for their own, or familiar cultures. I am starting to wonder if you posses the mental gymnastics to grasp this.

do you agree with genetic ethnocentrism?

 

[G2ian]

I was just quoting you on Military Power. Military Power is a zero sum game calculus. Doesn't matter how as long as you got a real advantage you got power.
I am not disagreeing with you and your observation. However keep in mind the Black Death and the huge technological advantage the Mongols had, from composite bows, to horse riding swarms of archers, to even gunpowder. That is even without mentioning their superior supply lines, army organisation, counter intelligence, psychological warfare etc, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization#Gunpowder

The whole Wikipedia entry on Mongol military is worth a read IMO.

Another similarity between the Mongols and the British was the control of the trade from East to West (https://medium.com/@rsdancey/genghis-khan-and-the-making-of-the-modern-world-285475b9f15d) that made them immensely rich and able to draft an international multi ethnic army, which was by no means inferior to any army they faced.

Inclusion[edit]

As they were conquering new people, the Mongols integrated into their armies the conquered people's men if they had surrendered - willingly or otherwise. Therefore, as they expanded into other areas and conquered other people, their troop numbers increased. Exemplifying this is the Battle of Baghdad, during which many diverse people fought under Mongol lordship. Despite this integration, the Mongols were never able to gain long-term loyalty from the settled peoples that they conquered.^[50]


I highly recommend these two books:

https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Jared-Diamond-ebook/dp/B000VDUWMC

https://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civilizations-Remaking-World-ebook/dp/B000R1BAH4

Perhaps you're right. It's just my opinion that Mongols had a bigger hill to climb. Either way it's such a minuscule point that I don't see a need for argument. Thanks for the links I'll definitely look at them later on. At the moment i'm taking a break from Mongol history as it's quite a depressing topic. Very heavy reading usually.

 

[Jovialis]

do you agree with genetic ethnocentrism?

I do to some degree, I am sure most people do. But I guess I am more honest than most people. Here in the United States, I am surrounded by people who are very different from me, and I judge them based on their character. Of course there are some people that would be similar to me, whose character are not as good as people who are genetically different. That being said, I am still very proud of my culture, and I recognize that it was made by people who are genetically similar to me. It doesn't mean I hate others, or judge them based on their genetics.

 

[Jovialis]

Okay. Good point.

So if I was born in the US (US nationality), to 4th generation Irish-Italian grandparents on my mothers side, and Native American - Mexican grandparents on my fathers side, what would my "ethnicity" be?

Also, you do realize most of the places with Hispanic / Latino majority in the US used to be part of Old Mexico? Do you find it acceptable that this people that lived there before the push to colonize the West from British imigrants, are now considered 2nd class citizens with remarks like "Go back to your country", "Speak English"....

Finally, most Greek nationalists I know say Arvanites are Greek, whether they mean nationality or ethnicity, God knows. But they swear Arvanites are Greek and not Albanian. And sadly, for me as an Albanian, quite a big portion of Arvanites consider themselves Greek ethnically today, and go out of their way not to know a single word of the language their grandparents spoke (Arvanitka)... So is it because of their genes that they consider themselves Greek?
I don't know man, if in 3 generations these people solely based on religion and geographic location, assimilated completely into the Greek ethnos, culturally and linguistically, to me it shows how it all is a big social construct, of nationalistic/ethnic whatever you want to call it, myth.

PS: If you were indeed right. Which I have no issue with. Then how did your forefathers become "Italians" to begin with? Surely there is genetic discrepancy, linguistic discrepancy, cultural discrepancy, in the various regions of Italy? No?
If genes were so important to determine nationality and culture, most ethnicities and cultures would have been gate-kept by such a constraint before they even formalized.

Anyways...

I am not saying I am right. Just my 2 cents.

If someone was that hypothetical mix here in the United States, they would actually go through the list of the various ethnic groups, and but say their nationality is "American". Many people in the United States are "mutts", but they are conscious of the various ethnicities they are composed of.

Italy is a constellation of various regional sub-ethnic, that comprise Italians. They were formed out of mixtures between Etruscans, Italic tribes, Celts, Greeks, Illyrians, and so on. Though genetically, and culturally, modern Italians were formed in Middle Ages.

I think the same could be said for a lot of different countries as well. Bavarians are pretty different from North Germans. Northern French are much different from Southern French. So are Greeks from the north, compared to the south or the Islands. Jews are extremely different from one another. It seems that people want to focus on Italians for some reason. I think the reason is because virtually every culture in Europe is a derivative of Greco-Roman culture, there is some envy, and even resentment.

 

[Archetype0ne]

If someone was that hypothetical mix here in the United States, they would actually go through the list of the various ethnic groups, and but say their nationality is "American". Many people in the United States are "mutts", but they are conscious of the various ethnicities they are composed of.

Italy is a constellation of various regional sub-ethnic, that comprise Italians. They were formed out of mixtures between Etruscans, Italic tribes, Celts, Greeks, Illyrians, and so on. Though genetically, and culturally, modern Italians were formed in Middle Ages.

I think the same could be said for a lot of different countries as well. Bavarians are pretty different from North Germans. Northern French are much different from Southern French. So are Greeks from the north, compared to the south or the Islands. Jews are extremely different from one another. It seems that people want to focus on Italians for some reason. I think the reason is because virtually every culture in Europe is a derivative of Greco-Roman culture, there is some envy, and even resentment.

I agree with you. That was indeed my point. Culture and Ethnicity are a social construct based on general agreed consensus and norms of the members of a group. And to a great degree these social constructs transcend genetics. Be it in French, Iberian, German, English, Slav, Greek, Italian or any context. At some point in history, like you mentioned Italians in Middle Ages, or ANY European ethnos during the period, we see the creation of national myths surrounding European Nation States, also known as Ethnogenesis following the 100 Year war. With the French and the English leading the way, differentiating against each other, surrounding the legendary battles they fought and in the process creating a "national" identity.

This to some extent explains why "Nation States" failed and are failing elsewhere. A look at the Middle East following the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of various states is evidence enough. The identities there were created around religion and tribe, and the context of a "nation" was lacking. Not that I think of it... Can't recall an instance of trouble rising in the region due to "Nationalism", as opposed to, for example the Balkans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balka...opolitical,or uncooperative with one another.



About envy and resentment, I am not sure, but would not be surprised if it were the case.
However, I mentioned Italians to drive my point since I was discussing with you, and I mentioned Arvanitas since that is an example I am familiar with.
If other people are like me, when they mention Romans or Italians as an exemplary they do so with admiration. Not sure why you took it the other way.

 

[Yetos]

first lets determine the term and the limits of word ethnos which is Greek word of nation

the primary difference is the begin older form of meaning

nation probably has to with native and nature
ethnos has to do rather with births,
the very ancient define it as
ομαιμον = same blood
ομογλωσσον= same language
ομοθρησκον = same religion

later the Platonics define it with education
'οστις μετεχει παιδειας' the ones who participates at education, culture, etc etc.
and the blood connection was determined as Γενος, Genos has the meaning the birth, borned ones. look the word Genocide. γενοκτονια.

sub-nations

different subnations
there are many and total differences in a nation, for example lets look at my country the Cretans and the continental inland mountain ones,
they can be genetical and cultural.
that happened mainly to natural enviroment, as also the occupation from others, (Crete was under Venician occupation, inland under Ottoman)
their culture is different. yet shares some common,

on the other hand lets take genetics
Greece and Turkey for example,
major population of Greece and Turkey share same and competable genetics,
yet today they are 2 tottaly different nations,

@Ailchu
so if I connect ethnocentrism with genes,
in case of Greece and turkey, what I must do?btw
Ailchu 80 years ago was WW2